A bill, SB 37, to end run the electoral college and go instead to a count of the popular votes of a cartel of large states for electing President, passed today with a vote of 42-28, with only Republicans voting "NO."
As few as 12 states can band together, regardless of how their own voters vote and cast electoral votes for the national popular vote leader, and determine the winner, small rural [red] states need not show up. A similar bill, AB 2948 of 2006 received nearly all Republicans "NO" votes then as well, 30, and was veteod by the Governor. This is good veto bait again.
June 30th, 2008 at 12:00 am
U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section I (excerpt):
“Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.”
How does SB 37 constitute an “end run” around the Electoral College. Clearly, the method of selection of presidential electors is in the purview of the legislature. Not that I agree with the proposed method, I just prefer that political discourse be based in fact, not hyperbole.
July 1st, 2008 at 12:00 am
Mark, it’s an issue of intent. Some sharp lawyer-types have just figured out a way to undermine the Constitution. If you want to go to a “National Popular Vote” — curiously the name of the main group sponsoring this effort — then amend the Constitution to provide for a direct vote to elect the President.
All the best,
Chuck DeVore
California State Assemblyman, 70th District
July 1st, 2008 at 12:00 am
The main problem with this proposal is determining who won the national popular vote in a close election, without a recount. State laws only provide for a recount if a race is extremely close in their state. But it’s quite possible for the national vote totals to be extremely close, but not close enough in any individual state to trigger any state’s recount laws. Would the American people really accept the results of such a close “national popular vote” with no opportunity for a recount?
Of course, even if you could get all 50 states and D.C. to provide for a recount in the event of a close national vote that is not close in their own jurisdiction, what you would do is multiply the Florida 2000 mess by 51. That doesn’t sound like a workable system to me, whether it’s done by a constitutional amendment or by a group of states.
July 1st, 2008 at 12:00 am
The “national vote” bill is a lawyers dream. Just imagine how bad a close election would be with less then a vote per precinct determining the winner? Not only do you have lawsuits and counter lawsuits in the states with “national vote” laws, but in all the rest as well.
Think about it, 100+ different lawsuits in each state, AND at least half a dozen more on the Federal level?
With the majority decision of Bush v. Gore and its equal consideration of votes requirement, an activist court could Federalize elections — which is in no doubt what many leftists want.
The electoral college exists so that a person has to have BROAD support across the country, and not just plurality support based on a few urban centers. We are a republic where even people in the minority can have a say…not an outright democracy/mobocracy.
July 1st, 2008 at 12:00 am
Once again, Democrats think they know better than the Founders… just get rid of the Electoral College.
However, I can see why Democrats would like this… they can campaign if a handful of big cities such as LA, New York, Chicago… and they can concentrate all their voter fraud efforts in those handful of large urban centers.
July 3rd, 2008 at 12:00 am
With all due respect, I think you all missed my point. I agree that the concept is a bad idea, but when our side uses phrases like “end run around the electoral college”, I believe that it just makes us look partisan rather than principled, and not any better when we try to apportion electoral votes by congressional district (a much better solution in my opinion). Using the langage of illegitimacy does not move the ball down the field.